Monday, June 30, 2003

Frist Supports States' Rights... except when states don't hate the same people he does

Never trust a conservative talking about "states rights." People who still wish the Confederacy won the Civil War will go to great lengths to persuade you that they're not racist--they just believe in states' rights (man, those Northerners were just so MEAN to the Southerners, forcing them to give up slavery!) It was the late Strom Thurmond's favorite excuse--once his open bigotry went out of style, he began to insist that his vigorous campaigns against integration weren't about racism, but about... states' rights.

Which brings us to all the conservatives currently arguing that the Supreme Court has no right to infringe on the rights of states to "express the morals" of their residents. (Translation: the Supreme Court has no right to infringe on the rights of states to treat gay/lesbian/bisexual/trans people like shit.)

... conservatives like Bill Frist. The Senate Majority Leader says he thinks the Supreme Court's decision to overturn sodomy laws was misguided because such laws should be left up to the states. From the AP:

"Generally, I think matters such as sodomy should be addressed by the state legislatures," Frist said. "That's where those decisions -- with the local norms, the local mores -- are being able to have their input in reflected."

But what if those local norms and mores are San Francisco or Manhattan mores? What if local norms and mores in a state support something like, say, same-sex marriage? Suddenly, big government is Bill's best friend: time to amend the federal Constitution!

Asked whether he supported an amendment that would ban any marriage in the United States except a union of a man and a woman, Frist said: "I absolutely do, of course I do."

In other words: social conservatives support states rights only for socially conservative states.

P.P.S. Reader Philip P. chides me for "ignoring completely Frist's argument that allowing legal acts to actually be legal would lead to illegal acts being committed" but then relents since August already covered that. He also directs your attention to a really icky conservative cartoon about the sodomy ruling that I actually saw earlier this morning but didn't get a chance to blog about.

Friday, June 27, 2003

Now Sold Out! My First Cartoon Collection!

The (signed!) book was $3.50, including shipping. It's a self-published (i.e. xeroxed, but in a good way) cartoon collection dating to the present. But it's all sold out now--thanks to everyone for their support!

Senator Guy W. Glodis has angered Muslims and a civil rights group over a flier he sent to fellow senators that says terrorist attacks could be deterred if convicted Muslim extremists were buried with pig entrails.

The flier, which Glodis's 39 colleagues received Wednesday, said an execution of Muslim extremists in the Philippines was ordered by General John Joseph ''Black Jack'' Pershing before World War I, in which the terrorists were shot with bullets dipped in pigs' blood, then buried with ''pigs' blood, entrails, etc.'' According to the flier, contact with the blood and entrails of pigs ''instantly barred'' Muslims from paradise, dooming them to hell. It said news of the burial deterred other terrorist attacks for ''the next forty-two years.''

''Maybe it is time for this segment of history to repeat itself, maybe in Iraq,'' the flier concluded. ''The question is, where do we find another Black Jack Pershing?''

and

The flier merely recounted historical fact, Glodis said, and should not have offended anyone.
''If some of my colleagues are so weak-kneed and politically correct and cannot accept historical fact, I suggest they lodge a formal complaint with the secretary of the Army,'' Glodis said.

The article goes on to cite the complaints of various Muslim and other civil rights groups, as well as calling the "history" behind the flier into question. But even if this dubious event was "historical fact" it was a historical atrocity--being promoted in the flier as sound future policy.

(Update: thanks to August for finding the flier and the story behind it on this urban legends site--it is, of course, total made-up bullshit inspired by nothing more than bigoted wishful thinking).

The Globe also notes that a few other senators have defended the flier on First Amendment grounds. But while it might be Glodis' First Amendment right to send the flier around, it's also the First Amendment right of those who think it's disgusting and offensive to say so. And legal questions aside, what does sending around a flier like this say about this man's character, intelligence and fitness for office? Anyway, it just goes to show once again that the Republicans have hardly cornered the market on bigoted idiots (John Silber, anyone?)

Scalia Has Fit Over Win for "Homosexual Agenda"Truly, my heart bleeds
+ a few other thoughts on the recent good news from the Supreme Court

According to the Associated Press, Scalia's dissenting opinion was LONGER than the majority opinion. Come on Antonin, take a deep breath! Some choice bits:

Justice Antonin Scalia, during the Supreme Court's final session of the term Thursday, accused his colleagues of inviting gay marriage in a ruling he said "coos" over a feel-good, gay rights agenda... . There were murmurs from some in the courtroom crowd as Scalia railed for more than seven minutes against what he called a hypocritical ruling that runs roughshod over democratically elected legislatures.

"Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools or as boarders in their home," Scalia wrote. "They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."

And we should pander to such bigotry why? But here's the fun part:

Scalia, writing for himself and the court's two other staunch conservatives, scoffed at the idea that Thursday's ruling does not address same-sex marriage. "Do not believe it," Scalia wrote... . "Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned."

We can only hope.

The White House, of course, said nothing. From a press briefing yesterday:

Q: And on the Texas sodomy case, does the President believe that gay
men have the legal right to have sexual relations in the privacy of their
own home?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think on this decision, the administration did not
file a brief in this case, unlike in the Michigan case. And this is now a
state matter.
Q: So he has no position on this?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's just as I indicated, the administration did not
file a brief on this - as, I think, you know.

"The court allowed the right to privacy to trump the compelling interest the state has in promoting the family interests of right and wrong," Falwell said. "It just says that privacy permits anything between consenting adults. It would actually makes bestiality legal if it's taken to the limits or privacy."

Lobbyists from the Family Foundation of Virginia vowed to continue their fight against the extension of marriage, adoption and custody rights to homosexuals.

So, what's going on? I mean, this is REALLY good news. REALLY good news. This is really something to party over, and just in time for Pride in a lot of cities. And so soon on the heels of the affirmative action decision. The Supreme Court actually went ahead and ADMITTED they were wrong on Bowers v. Hardwick. Yee-ha! But...

Reader Philip Pangrac is similiarly confused, and has his own theory:

First the Supreme Court upholds Affirmative Action, then they act in favor of homosexuals. Am I the only one thinking they're setting us liberals up for a big-ass sucker punch? Next week they allow wiretaps in everyone's house, followed by incarceration without charges and a complete gutting of the Bill of Rights.

Let's just hope not. But I have to say, as happy as I am about the Supreme Court decision on sodomy laws, that DOESN'T MAKE UP FOR THE FACT THAT THEY APPOINTED BUSH PRESIDENT. So it's kinda funny to hear the same people who were so freakin' happy when the Supremes illegally installed Bush complaining about how undemocratic the court is. From the San Francisco Chronicle ("Conservatives condemn 'error of biblical proportions'"):

"We're very disappointed that six unelected officials in black robes seem to have trumped the state Legislature of Texas -- the elected representatives of the people of the state of Texas," said Karen England, spokeswoman for the Capitol Resource Institute, a statewide lobbying group in Sacramento.

"Strom Thurmond dead at age 100" (The Boston Globe). This headline takes the neutral route, though the article tries its best to be positive, saying that "no other politician underwent more radical changes." Included is this quote: "In 1974 the former Dixiecrat told the Washington Post, 'I don't know how I got such a reputation as a segregationist. I think my position was just misunderstood. I guess it was because when I was the governor of South Carolina it was my duty to uphold the law and the law required segregation, so I was just doing my duty.'"

"TRIBUTE: J. STROM THURMOND," "Strom Thurmond, S.C. Legend, Dies," "Thurmond's career, life were extraordinary," "Strom's legacy will be his service to the state and people he loved." (South Carolina's The State). The all-out worship route.

As for my personal take on the man's death... what can I say? I think August has the right idea: I'm not going to gloat over his death here, but I won't pretend that I ever had the slightest fondness for him when he was alive, either (as you may recall). Strom Thurmond was a racist who did everything in his power to fight integration and preserve racial inequality, the things he stood for and supported were vile, evil, disgusting and revolting, and his death doesn't magically change that.

Update: My boyfriend just sent me this much bolder Alternet headline from South Carolinian writer Christopher George, "Strom Won't Be Missed". A small excerpt from the story:

As might be imagined, he is being remembered as a hero in his home state. The local media would have you believe that the earth itself spun only because he willed it to. We have a tendency, as a people, to not speak badly of those who have passed away, but it's important to remember people for who they actually were, not some rose-colored vision of who they were, or pretended to be.

It's with that in mind that I want to paint a picture of what Strom Thurmond really stood for. He was a racist. No amount of sugarcoating or excuse-making can change that. In fact, he was one of the most important figures in the history of the Segregated South... .

If segregation is wrong now it was wrong then, and anybody who supported it was wrong. It's really that simple. Besides, we're not talking about just an average Southern citizen; we're talking about a Southern leader... . Thurmond and his political peers were not followers; they were the policymakers.

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a liberal Washington think tank, examined a proposal by the Labor Department to change the criteria for paying overtime and found that it would cost 2.5 million salaried employees and 5.5 million hourly employees their right to overtime pay.

The proposed changes, which were first introduced in March, will be implemented by the Labor Department after a "public comment" period, which expires on Monday.

According to the report, among other things, the new rules reclassify millions of workers (even those who mainly perform manual labor) as "professional," "administrative," or "executive," making them ineligible for overtime. Which of course leads to the obvious:

The proposal could also cause workers to work longer hours, since the Labor Department doesn't put any limit on the number of hours per week an employee must work, the group said in a study published on its Web site. ... "Once employers are not required to pay for overtime work, they will schedule more of it," the study said.

The union hearing on the new rules, of course, has been mysteriously cancelled.

To be fair, the changes aren't all bad. As CNN notes, there is some help for low-income workers:

The good news is that the regulations would raise that cut-off amount to $425 a week -- about $22,100 per year -- actually adding about 1.3 million lower-wage workers to the ranks of people eligible for overtime, according to the Labor Department.

However, as the EPI points out, this is still a relatively low cutoff point, and will not rise as it is not indexed for inflation. And 1.3 million workers gaining the right to overtime pay doesn't exactly make up for the other millions who will lose it.
The Department of Labor press release, meanwhile, describes the plan in vague terms as "modernizing" and "strengthening" overtime, and "bringing it into the 21st century."

The AFL-CIO says that's a load of crap, and has some information on what you can do about it. From their website:

"As unemployment soars and America's workers struggle in a faltering economy, the Bush proposal would encourage employers to cut hiring and instead rely on fewer to do more work for less money," says AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney. "The proposal is an unjustified scorched earth strategy to decrease workers' paychecks and rights in the name of 'updating' rules for the modern workplace."

An infinite amount of gratitude goes to Cindy, who invited me to Pittsburgh in the first place, and of course to Clay.

Big props are also due to Mr. Rall, who not only tells a really good story over a margarita but who also drafted me (a first-time convention attendee who hasn't even been cartooning for two years!) to be on a panel, "Gangs of the AAEC: The Alties vs. the Nasties: Should we replace donkeys and elephants with wordy talking heads with badly-drawn hands?" I was Altie number 3 (Ted and Lalo being numbers 1 and 2), and Ted and Cindy tell me I was plenty articulate despite being completely unprepared and sleep-deprived.

All in all, Cindy, Clay and Ted made me feel very welcome at the convention, and not like some kid trying to sit at the adults table.

As a side note, hanging out at the conference drastically increased my quota of straight white male acquaintances, but the question of why editorial cartooning is such a male-dominated field will have to wait for another time.

As for the MOCCA Festival, I have to say the best part was the people who came up my table and said things like "Are you Mikhaela? I read your blog all the time!" or "I read your cartoons in the Boston Phoenix." I mean, I know I have readers but it's a whole other thing to actually meet them--sometimes I wonder if I'm sending cartoons and blogs into the vaccuum just for my own satisfaction. So I sold and signed a bunch of books (soon to be available by mail-order) and posters, with a lot of help from my fabulous boyfriend Yves. Yves also filled in for me at the table when I wanted to go and say hello to Howard Cruse, Keith Knight, Scott Bateman, and, once again, Ted Rall. And I finally got to meet fellow young cartoonist/blogger August Pollak and (drum roll) the man himself, Tom Tomorrow. So all in all, a good time.

The Supreme Court struck down a Texas ban on gay sex Thursday, ruling that the law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.

The justices voted 6-3 in striking down the Texas law, saying it violated due process guarantees... . The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, appears to cover similar laws in 12 other states and reverses a 1986 high court ruling upholding sodomy laws. Kennedy wrote that homosexuals have "the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention."

"The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime," Kennedy wrote, according to a report from The Associated Press.

"The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote for the three, according to the AP. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench.

"The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals."

Yes, of course Scalia has nothing against homosexuals. He just doesn't think they should be allowed to have free speech, families, jobs, love, respect, privacy, or consensual sex. So except for the part where he'd be happier if all gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people fell of a cliff, he has nothing against homosexuals.

By the way, if you're wondering what to do with all those useless sodomy laws that are now cluttering up your house, most of my suggestions still stand.

This is one of those ones where I spent hours and hours scribbling out ideas trying to figure out how to make a point about Bush's (and America's) short attention span (i.e. Afghanistan and Iraq are still a mess and he's already thinking about military action against Iran). And in the end, I had one hour until deadline and I just had to turn out what I could and feel vaguely unhappy about it. I'd like to blame the 97-degree heat and my lack of air-conditioning for muddying my brain, but considering that it's getting to be over 120 degrees in Baghdad right now (with an extreme lack of electricity), I don't have much to complain about.

A few other cartoons to check out (i.e. cartoons NOT about Harry Potter or Martha Stewart)

President Bush called on Congress yesterday to make it easier for federally funded religious groups to base their hiring decisions on a job candidate's religion and sexual orientation.

A White House position paper sent to Capitol Hill argues that "religious hiring rights" are part of religious organizations' civil rights. "When they receive federal funds, they should retain their right to hire those individuals who are best able to further their organizations' goals and mission," the document says.

Sorry, but I can't see how hiring someone gay or of another religion would really interfere with federally funded goals and missions, as those goals and missions presumably don't involve telling gay people and people of other religions they're going to fry in everylasting fire. But Bush is trying to make it sound like he wants to give money to antigay religious organizations because he CARES SO MUCH about the poor (and by extension, people who complain about antigay discrimination must HATE the poor!):

H. James Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said in an interview that he found great confusion about hiring laws when he met with officials of charities throughout the country. "It's been abundantly clear that the religious hiring issue is a real barrier for a lot of faith-based organizations," Towey said. "And if faith-based organizations are deterred from providing services, the real losers are the poor."

Right, because gay people are incapable of serving soup or working with the homeless. Anyway, if Bush cared so much about the poor, he would have spent a few of those billions that went to tax cuts and bombing the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq on programs for relieving and ending poverty and homelessness.

Science fiction has a LOT of subgenres (space operas, time travel, dystopias, generation ships, alien encounters, cyberpunk, Women in Unbearably Tight Spacesuits and so forth), and in the hands of the right authors, alternate history is one of the best. A classic (and highly recommended) example is Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle, which explores a horrible world in which the Axis powers won World War II and have divided the U.S. up among themselves. A more recent (and also highly recommended) example is African-American science fiction writer Steven Barnes' Lion's Blood: A Novel of Slavery and Freedom in an Alternate America, which takes place in an America colonized by Islamic Africa, where Europeans are slaves (and slavery is equally as bad as in our own past, of course, just different in lots of subtle ways).

And while we're talking about slavery... Well, as I discovered while wading through the Science Fiction Book Club's new selections list, Newt Gingrich has taken time out of his distinguished career as a Fox News analyst to contribute to the alternate history genre, but I don't think he sees slavery as all that bad. Apparently the former House Speaker is now amusing himself writing fantasy histories in which the Confederacy beats the Union thanks to the genius of Robert E. Lee. The first in the series is called "Gettysburg: A Novel of the Civil War." From the inside flap of the book:

As the years passed, and the scars healed, the debate, rather than drifting away, has intensified. It is the battle which has become the great "what if?" of American history and the center of a dreamscape where Confederate banners crown the heights above the town.

The year is 1863, and General Robert E. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia are poised to attack the North and claim the victory that would end the brutal conflict.

Launching his men into a vast, sweeping operation, of which the town of Gettysburg is but one small part of the plan, General Lee, acting as he did at Chancellorsville, Second Manassas, and Antietam, displays the audacity of old. He knows he has but one more good chance to gain ultimate victory, for after two years of war the relentless power of an industrialized North is wearing the South down. Lee's lieutenants and the men in the ranks, imbued with this renewed spirit of the offensive, embark on the Gettysburg Campaign that many dream "should have been." The soldiers in the line, Yank and Reb, knew as well that this would be the great challenge, the decisive moment that would decide whether a nation would die or be created, and both sides were ready, willing to lay down their lives for their Cause.

An action-packed and painstakingly researched masterwork, Gettysburg stands as the first book in a trilogy to tell the story of how history could have unfolded, how a victory for Lee would have changed the destiny of the nation forever. In the great tradition of The Killer Angels and Jeff Shaara’s bestselling Civil War trilogy, this is a novel of true heroism and glory in America’s most trying hour.

Sounds like some has a bad case of the "I wish slavery were still around so I could beat black people and get away with it" blues...

"When I look at the members of the United States military, I see the best of our country, and I am honored to be your Commander-In-Chief," Bush said. "I am equally honored that you are stoically accepting Congress' elimination of a large percentage of the benefits you were promised upon enlisting so that I can finance a massive tax cut."

As I've probably mentioned before, one of my grandmothers is a disabled veteran who relies on her monthly VA check, and she's already gotten a nice little letter in the mail informing her that she needs to give back some of the money the VA has already sent her this year, and that the VA will no longer pay her out-of-pocket medical expenses. Sigh...

Assessment: While the level of threat posed by racism likely held static in most of the country, the threat to black people in New York City skyrocketed to high-to-severe levels. The police shooting of Ousmane Zongo and the death of Alberta Spruill painted a picture of callous official disregard for the lives and safety of black people, while the low likelihood anyone will pay for these two deaths with jail time suggested there is still little justice to be had from the NYPD. On the cultural front, the myth of the black male rapist made a comeback thanks to Mike Tyson and Fox News, Tyson's random, pointless outburst during a leeway value interview titillating racist audiences with images of sexualized black rage.

Rising and Falling Indicators: Police brutality still RISING. Myth of the black male rapist is RISING. The Jayson-ization of black professionals is FALLING.

In case you're not aware, 35-year-old African immigrant Ousmane Zongo is the latest innocent unarmed black man to be shot and killed by a New York City police officer. He was shot four times by a plainclothes white officer conducting a raid on a CD/DVD-counterfeiting ring (Zongo had no involvement with the ring).

Alberta Spruill is the 57-year-old Harlem woman who died of a heart attack after police mistakenly raided her apartment, detonated a concussion grenade and handcuffed her. Although her death has been ruled a homicide, this doesn't necessarily mean the police will be held liable.

Surprise, SurpriseRemember those hundreds of immigrants rounded up and detained after September 11...

... denied lawyers, denied access to their families, held for months and months without being ANY OF THEM BEING CHARGED in any connection with the attacks, deported for minor violations, physically and verbally abused and so on? Well, the U.S. Inspector General's office has actually issued a report criticizing the roundup. From the NYTimes ("U.S. Report Faults the Roundup of Illegal Immigrants After 9/11"):

The Justice Department's roundup of hundreds of illegal immigrants in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks was plagued with "significant problems" that forced many people with no connection to terrorism to languish in jails in unduly harsh conditions, an internal report released today found.

The highly critical report from the Justice Department's inspector general concluded that F.B.I. officials, particularly in New York City, "made little attempt to distinguish" between immigrants who had possible ties to terrorism and those swept up by chance in the investigation.

And I've said it before, but let me repeat myself: these detainees had nothing to do with 9/11. They were held for months and months, and mostly deported, but NEVER CHARGED in connection with the attacks:

A total of 762 illegal immigrants were jailed in the weeks and months after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, as the authorities traced tens of thousands of leads and sought to prevent another attack. Most of the 762 immigrants have now been deported, and none have been charged as terrorists.

That's right, NONE have been charged, a small fact that hasn't received much attention. Six months after September 11, I did a cartoon for my college paper called "Six Months Since September 11." In my original cartoon, I wrote that none of the detainees had been charged in connection with the attacks.

My editors at the Harvard Crimson (my college paper) refused to believe me. "That CAN'T be true," they said. I argued and argued with them, but to no avail. I was on deadline and couldn't retrieve an article proving that fact to their satisfaction in time, but it had been in the New York Times only a few weeks ago. They wouldn't run the cartoon unless I changed it to "VERY FEW have been charged in the attacks," which just wasn't true.

Monday, June 02, 2003

Happy Birthday to me...

Sorry for the silence, yesterday was my 23rd birthday and I've been celebrating... Also, I'm working on a book that I'm going to sell at the MOCCA cartoon festival, so it might be slow here in the blog for a while... so go read This Modern World for a while...